4 ms·
1. and 2. are closely related. High cost at least partially can be attributed to the requirement for nuclear to be in not the safest then at least safer than co
by citrin_ru 3y ago
1. and 2. are closely related. High cost at least partially can be attributed to the requirement for nuclear to be in not the safest then at least safer than coal/hydro and many other currently used sources. Pretty much like people demand air travel to be the safest form of transportation. But given that without nuclear we would continue to burn coal/gas which is not risk free either may be the balance should be struck on the other point of the cost-safety spectrum.